MONTGOMERY v. PENSION BENEFIT GUARANTY, 09-5097 (D.C. Cir. 7-10-2009)
Leroy Montgomery, Appellant v. Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation, asstatutory trustee and guarantor of the LTV Steel Hourly Pension Plan,Appellee.
No. 09-5097.United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit.
Filed On: July 10, 2009.Page 1
[EDITOR'S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.] BEFORE: Ginsburg, Tatel, and Brown, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam.
ORDER
Upon consideration of the motion for summary affirmance and the opposition thereto, it is
ORDERED that the motion for summary affirmance be granted. The merits of the parties' positions are so clear as to warrant summary action. SeeTaxpayers Watchdog, Inc. v. Stanley, 819 F.2d 294, 297 (D.C. Cir. 1987) (per curiam). The Youngstown Steel and Tube Company ("YST") pension agreement required appellant to work for a continuous period of at least fifteen years in order for his pension benefit to vest, but it is undisputed that appellant worked at YST for less than fifteen years.See United Mine Workers of America 1974 Pension v. Pittston Co.,984 F.2d 469, 473 (D.C. Cir. 1993) (when the court "construe[s] the meaning of a contract, the dispute may be resolved as a matter of law if the contested agreement admits of only one reasonable interpretation"). And even if the pension agreement contained an implied term that pension eligibility could be based on the total number of hours worked, appellant fails to demonstrate how 500 hours of overtime would provide him with the equivalent of fifteen years of continuous service.
Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition will not be published. The ClerkPage 2
is directed to withhold issuance of the mandate herein until seven days after resolution of any timely petition for rehearing or petition for rehearing en banc. See Fed.R.App.P. 41(b); D.C. Cir. Rule 41.Page 1